FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 23837/04 by Risto NOVOSELSKI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, Snejana Botoucharova , Karel Jungwiert , Volodymyr Butkevych , Rait Maruste , Mark Villiger , Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 June 2004,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a f riendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Risto Novoselski , is a Macedonian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Skopje . The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were r epresented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. Background of the case

The applicant was employed with the company A.D. OHIS (“the employer”) from 1978 until 2001 when he retired. During that time, he was reassigned several times. On 30 January 1989 he was appointed advisor to the Chief Executive of the employer. He held that position until 10 September 1990 when the employer dismissed him.

By a decision of 1 April 1991 (“the 1991 decision”), the employer reassigned the applicant as a salesperson ( комерцијалист ) . This decision was annulled by a court decision of 17 February 1992 since the post requirements did not correspond to the applicant ’ s qualifications. However, the applicant continued working as a salesperson until 1 May 1992 (“the 1992 decision”), when he was reassigned again, this time, as a head of unit ( раководител на одделение ) . By a court decision of 9 December 1994, the 1992 decision was also annulled for the same reasons as above: the post requirements did not correspond to the applicant ’ s qualifications.

2. Civil proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s compensation claim in respect of the 1991 and 1992 reassignment decisions

On 24 January 1994 the applicant brought a compensation claim against the employer in respect of the 1991 and 1992 decisions. In both cases, he requested the difference between the salary which he would have received as an advisor to the Chief Executive and the re-assignment salaries.

On 8 November 2000 the applicant successfully requested the removal of judge M.P. from his case. Judge J.S.P. was appointed to decide the case.

On 7 November 2002 the panel of the Skopje Court of First Instance presided over by judge J.S.P., partially upheld the applicant ’ s claim awarding him compensation in an amount lower than requested plus interest. It dismissed the applicant ’ s claim for reimbursement of the difference in salary that he would have earned as an advisor to the Chief Executive arguing that the courts ’ decisions annulling the reassignment decisions of 1991 and 1992 had not provided for such reinstatement.

On 20 November 2003 the Skopje Court of Appeal confirmed the first-instance court ’ s decision. The applicant stated that this decision was served on him on 23 December 2003.

On 11 March 2004 the public prosecutor refused the applicant ’ s application of 12 January 2004 for lodging a request for the protection of legality ( барање за заштита на законитоста ) with the Supreme Court .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complain ed under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings lasted unreasonably long; that the domestic courts incorrectly applied national law in respect of the compensation awarded; and that judge J.S.P. was biased. In this latter context, the applicant referred to another case heard by that judge who was removed upon his request.

THE LAW

On 3 January 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“ I, Radica Lazareska Gerovska , Agent of the Government , declare that the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia offer to pay ex gratia 2,200 euros to Mr Risto Novoselski with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Macedonian Denars at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. ”

T he declaration signed and submitted to the Court by the applicant , read, inter alia , as follows:

“ I, Risto Novoselski , the applicant , note that the Government of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 2,200 euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the E uropean Court of Human Rights... I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. ”

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

             Claudia Westerdiek Peer Lorenzen Registrar President